Allahabad High Court
Mega Nath Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 June, 2022
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Court No. - 5 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 80 of 2022 Applicant :- Mega Nath Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 23.7.2021 as well as entire proceeding of case no. 1043 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 2020, under Sections- 147,148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 427, 457, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Fatehganj East, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Fareedpur Bareilly.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. After some arguments a prayer has been made to permit the applicant to move a discharge application as provided under law. As the summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
4. On the other hand, learned AGA has not opposed the prayer of the applicant for discharge.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of two months from today.
6. Till 30.8.2022 or till the decision is taken on the discharge application whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
7. If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
8. With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.6.2022 S.K.